Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VIDEO: Attorneys speaking against Valero crude by rail

Repost of YouTube VIDEO By Constance Beutel

Valero Crude by Rail: Attorneys speaking against CBR

Attorneys representing a variety of agencies presented rationale opposing Valero Benicia’s Crude by Rail (CBR) project. These video extracts are from the City of Benicia’s video archive of the Benicia Planning Commission hearings, February 8-11, 2016.

This segment shows the allowed 5-minutes each for the following attorneys:

The full video of all four Feb. 8-11 Planning Commission meetings can be found at the City’s website, Agendas & Minutes.

Crude By Rail, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

THE OIL TRAINS – to the tune of “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald”

UPDATED Mar 24, 2016 – Here’s a great song by Andy Shaw of Benicia (DrewBobBanjo on SoundCloud). For more movement songs about oil trains, see our Arts Page.

The Oil Trains

Tune: The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, by Gordon Lightfoot
Words: Andy Shaw

LYRICS (download here):

The Oil Trains
Lyrics by Andy Shaw
Tune: Gordon Lightfoot’s The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

The oil trains roll down from the Bakken shale fields
O’er the rivers and streams of the prairie.
The mountains rear up and the engines bear down
As they climb up through rugged rock valleys.

The rails twist and bend under weights gone unborne
since the boom times of early last century.
And rail men can swear that they tend them with care
But the Devil cares not for our safety.

The boardrooms live dreams with gilded age themes
with complete disregard for our families.
And workers might say that their jobs go away
if we don’t let the bosses have money.

The big trains roll down with a high wailing sound
as the brakes burn with gravity’s fury.
Hundreds of cars come to Roseville’s big yard
where they’re broken down into the fifties.

And down-rail they go with their Hellish cargo
through towns like Suisun and Green Valley.
Over marshes and fens and the salt water bogs
that were home to the ancient Ohlone.

Then they’re crossing our roads with Promethean loads
as they make the wide turn to Valero.
And we all hold our breath as they rattle and roll
when they come to a stop to be emptied.

Could this be the day, as the old ones might say,
when the captains of greed meet their makers?
And the fire sweeps the ground where the prophets went ‘round
and professed to be our town’s great saviors!

Chlorine, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Ethanol, Evacuation, Explosion, Hydrochloric acid, Liquified petroleum gas, Propane

BUFFALO NEWS: The next train derailment could be far more disastrous

Repost from the Buffalo News

Another Voice: The next train derailment could be far more disastrous

By Jean Dickson & Larry Brooks, March 24, 2016 – 12:01AM

The March 1 train derailment in Ripley should serve as a warning to all residents of Western New York, and especially to those living close to the rail lines.

Many people give no thought to the passing freight trains that run along the Lake Erie shore, through our suburbs, and around the Beltline, which runs through Buffalo’s dense Black Rock, North, East Side and South neighborhoods with tracks crossing the Buffalo River in several places.

A century ago, there were even more tracks through the city, but the trains carried passengers and freight, which was mostly heavy and inert, such as grain, coal and lumber. If a car derailed, the only people hurt were those standing along the tracks. Now the freight includes huge quantities of hazardous chemicals, including chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid, ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas, propane and petroleum crude oil.

In Ripley, residents were very lucky that no spark lit up the ethanol and propane tank cars that derailed. In Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013, people were not so lucky: 47 people died when petroleum crude oil exploded and a large part of the town was burned. The downtown area is not yet habitable almost three years later, due to soil and water contamination.

Firefighters in Ripley knocked on doors to evacuate residents, but this took some time. The cars derailed at 9:30 p.m.; a resident interviewed by WBFO said he was awakened and evacuated at 11 p.m. If the cars had exploded, as in Quebec, this would have been much too late. In Buffalo, the number of people to evacuate would greatly exceed the 50 or so households evacuated in Ripley.

Ripley residents were also lucky that no tank cars of poisonous gas derailed. If one car of chlorine gas had burst open, it would have killed people for miles around, depending on wind conditions, even without a fire.

In Buffalo, this hazardous freight crosses more than 30 bridges, most of which are 100 or more years old. They belong to companies such as CSX and are used by many railroad companies. Some are in decrepit condition, rusty and dropping chunks of concrete on our roads as they fall apart.

While this railroad infrastructure is in corporate hands, the public has little influence on its condition. Before a deadly derailment occurs, we must do everything possible to inspect and repair bridges and to reroute the hazardous freight away from populated areas.

In the long run, we should make every effort to decrease the use of such hazardous chemicals.

Jean Dickson and Larry Brooks live adjacent to Beltline tracks in Buffalo.
Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

By Roger Straw, March 18, 2016

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

City_of_Benicia_logoAs of this writing, there is much confusion over Valero’s March 15 request at City Council to delay consideration of their appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous rejection of their Crude by Rail proposal.

Earlier today, several independent inquiries were sent to City staff asking what will happen next. City Attorney Heather McLaughlin responded to all in a single email, in which she attempted to give some direction to the public. Her answers left much still to be determined. We may learn more later, as she wrote, “Staff will be preparing a staff report for the April 4 [City Council] meeting. We hope to publish it by close of business on March 28.” [Staff reports and Council packets can be found on the City’s City Council page.]

McLaughlin listed questions and gave her answers in bold, below:

  1. Could you please tell me if the City’s code describes the situation of a request for a delay of an appeal by an appellant contesting planning commission decisions  made under a CEQA review of a project?  If so, what are the rules governing such a request? If there are no rules that address such a request, what authority does the council have to either approve or ignore Valero’s request for delay in a hearing process?  Section 1.44.040 (F) of the Benicia Municipal Code allows the City and the appellant to agree to extend the time for hearing an appeal.  The City’s agreement would have to be made at a public meeting if the appeal, like here, is to a person or body that holds regular meetings.  Regular meeting rules would apply like public comment before taking action. 
  2. Would Valero’s request for delay constitute an action under the purview of CEQA, since the CBR Project is still under CEQA review via Valero’s appeal at this point?  No CEQA review would be required for delaying the project. 
  3. If the City Council agrees to Valero’s requested delay, would this mean that the public hearings and all submissions/comments under CEQA would be continued into the indefinite future until such time as Valero receives whatever word on preemption from the Surface Transportation Board? This decision would be up to the Council. Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. 
  4. Would information from the STB on preemption be considered “new information”, and if so, would that response from STB have to be incorporated in a revised FEIR under CEQA?  Depending on what an STB decision might say, the City may or may not decide to revise the FEIR.  The City Council will make this decision after considering any STB decision. 
  5. If the Council continues the hearings and takes public testimony on previously scheduled days (April 4th, 6th, 19th), would future hearings be held after Valero receives info from the STB? In other words, how would the public be informed of new information rec’d, (if any)?  The City Council will have to take any future action on the project at one or more noticed meetings.  There will be opportunity for public comment until the public hearing is closed.
  6. Will the City Council hold two public hearings on the project to receive public comments – one regarding Valero’s request for a continuance and another on the project? The City Council will determine the process.  Staff does not have a recommendation at this point. 
  7. Will the City Council first consider Valero’s request to delay the appeal before the public hearing on the appeal begins?  Please see the answer to 6RK above.
  8. Will the public have the opportunity to comment on Valero’s request for delay of the appeal? Yes.  Public comment will be allowed before the Council decides. 
  9. If the request to delay the appeal is granted, will the scheduled public hearing on the appeal be cancelled?  Please see response 3MB above. 
  10. If the request to delay the appeal is denied, will the public hearing then proceed as scheduled? Yes.

My summary:  Every time the City Attorney says Council will decide and staff has no recommendation at this time, it means staff will probably confer (with Council members?) and make a more or less decisive staff recommendation, which the public will not know until March 28. This applies to questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. So – my opinion – there’s not much information here.

What we DO learn, without much surprise, is that:

  1. Question 1: The City attorney upholds Valero’s right under city code to request a delay. See item F: “The time limits in this section may be extended if the applicant(s) and appellant(s) agree.”
  2. Question 2: The City attorney holds that “no CEQA review would be required for delaying the project.” It might be good to get a CEQA expert’s opinion.
  3. Question 8: Public comment will be allowed on the delay.
  4. Question 10: If the delay is denied, hearings on the appeal will proceed as planned.

Council rally and hearing 4.4.16 (125)SO … It seems clear that significant important decisions will be made at the City Council hearing on April 4.  Plan to attend – our Council members need to know how we feel about health and safety here in Benicia.  You can RSVP on Eventbrite or on Facebook.

For safe and healthy communities…